Favorite killer/serial killer

The womb of a woman is a sacred place because it is here a human enters the world, and that human should be welcomed by all participants in the creating of him. But who are comitting the greatest immorality : The woman who degrade her own womb and cast off the purpose nature hath given her, or the rapist who gains control over the womb of a woman, who hath gone away from the natural ways?

Remember how Jesus cast out the merchants of the temple? That would be equal to reintroducing the old custom of bride by capture, be the captured females feminists. Likewise it would be moral to serial kill those serial killers who prey on the rigthous.

The horrors of rape lie in the loss of dignity and purity.

It is the same as with any other form of psycological abuses.A gang of douchbags migth cause the poet to lose his dignity and purity by saying to him every day "hey faggot, have you written a faggot poem today?"

The actions of rape or killing is not itself the immorality. The immorality lies only in the character of the person who do evil : That they value and respect not that which is good, and even prey on it.

I think you are considering the sexual act as a purely reproductive reality and not considering the other functions, meanings and implications of its presence. You seem to also overlook birth control. I don't think I really agree with anything you said.

You can't get a complete list of true moral rules like the Pentateuch.

I don't believe in an a priori morality either. Actions should be judged according to the effects they produce.

Condoning rape in any way, shape, or form has negative consequences for society at large. I don't want to live in a society that ignores when certain people are raped because that set of people will expand over time and eventually include everyone. Not to mention the social pissing contest that is produced when everyone is trying to prove themselves 'worthy'.

'Concrete' morality is effective insofar as it prevents the slippery slope mentality that leads to the rationalization of heinous acts. The holocaust didn't happen over night -- Jews were slowly marginalized in the German people's eyes until their lives meant nothing at all.

Quote

Ofcourse I would not rape and kill my sister, as the act of doing so intertwine with the whole family and with the sheere indecensy of doing such a vile act of incest.

I think you misunderstood my question. I was asking if you're sister was a feminist, and got raped by some random guy(why you thought I was implying yourself is beyond me), would your blood not boil? Or is she still just a worthless feminist?

The truth is that even in a holocaust or a war we have to look at the individual incidents before we can judge if it be moral or not. It's impossible to take the whole thing as such into judgement.

People are guilty by heart and not only by hand. It migth be Julius Steicher was evil and unjust, while some other nazi were not. If he was mislead by Julius to gass a man that did not deserve the punishment, that doesn't mean the gasser was a weasel and a scoundrel, but only ill informed about his victim.

The moral is again context dependent.

And my point before was, that you have to take into account who does it and against who.

And for the common standard argument : It's not the moral dogma that should be the standard like a law, but instead the values. If some douchebag don't appriciate the values of goodness and rigthousness, then we migth as well depose of him before he commits rapes and killings of the innocent.